Preamble

The House met at Eleven, of the Clock, MR. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Epsom Rural District Council Bill [Lords]. (King's Consent signified.)

Read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

Guildford Rural District Council Bill [Lords].

Read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

South Yorkshire and Derbyshire Gas Bill. (King's Consent signified.)

Read the Third time, and passed.

Pier and Harbour Provisional Order (No. 1) Bill.

As amended considered; to be read the Third time upon Monday next.

Orders of the Day — MENTAL TREATMENT BILL [Lords].

Order for Consideration of Lords Amendments to Commons Amendment and Lords Reason for disagreeing to Commons Amendment, read.

Motion made, and Question "That the Lords Amendments to Commons Amendment be now considered" put, and agreed to.—[Miss Laurence].

Lords Amendments to Commons Amendment considered accordingly.

CLAUSE 5.—(Provision for treatment with certification of persons temporarily incapable of volition.)

Message from the Lords:

The Lords agree to the Amendment made by the Commons in page 5, line 43, with the following Amendments:

Line 2, after ("application") insert ("or")

Line 2, leave out ("or order")

Line 3, after ("application") insert ("or")

Line 4, leave out ("or order")

Commons Amendment:

In line 43, at the end, insert the words:
The Board of Control shall upon the signed request of any person who considers himself to be unjustly detained under such application, recommendation, or order, furnish to him or to his authorised representative free of cost a copy of such application, recommendation, or order.

Lords Amendment to Commons Amendment:

In line 2, after the word "application" insert the word "or".

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Miss Lawrence): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT: May I ask in what line this Amendment is made? The Lords Amendment says "line 2", but I think it is line 3 which is indicated.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: It seems to be that line 2 ought to be line 3. It is in line 3 that the word "application"
occurs. There appear to have been two or three misprints in this case. The words referred to in the next Lords Amendment, although they appear on the Paper as being in line 2, are in lines 3 and 4; and in the case of the third Lords Amendment, instead of being in line 3 the words should be in line 5. The fourth Lords Amendment occurs in line 6 instead of in line 4, as stated.

Mr. SPEAKER: It appears to be quite right.

Dr. VERNON DAVIES: With all respect, Sir, it is impossible to follow from the Paper setting out the Lords Amendments what it is that is being done. It is impossible to follow what "application" means. We have no idea what it is that we are discussing.

Sir BOYD MERRIMAN: Would it not be better if the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health were to tell us exactly what this Amendment does mean and what it is that has been effected?

Mr. SPEAKER: The Clerk had better read the whole Amendment.
The CLERK read the Amendment as followeth:
The Beard of Control shall upon the signed request of any person who considers himself to be unjustly detained under such application, recommendation or order furnish to him or to his authorised representative free of cost a copy of such application, recommendation or order.

Miss LAWRENCE: The position is simply that the class of patients with whom we are dealing here are not patients in respect of whom an order has been made. The words "or order" were dropped in inadvertently and are not applicable here. That is the whole point of these Amendments.

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to Commons Amendment agreed to.

Commons Amendment:

After Clause 16 insert

NEW CLAUSE.—(Accounts of licensed houses.)

(1) The licensees of every licensed house shall cause such accounts to be kept as the Board of Control from time to time
prescribe, and the accounts so kept shall be audited once a year in such manner and by such person as the Board direct.

(2) A copy of the accounts and of the report of the auditor thereon shall be sent by the licensees to the Board of Control and the Board may, if they think fit, publish in their report the whole or any part of any such accounts or report, and any information obtained therefrom.

(3) The licensees shall pay to the auditor such fee in respect of the audit as the Board of Control direct."

The Lords disagree to the Amendment made by the Commons in page 16 to insert New Clause B (Accounts of Licensed Houses) for the following Reason:

Because it entails undue interference in the management of private institutions.

Miss LAWRENCE: I beg to move, "That this House doth not insist upon its Amendment to which the Lords have disagreed."
This Clause formed no part of the original Bill. As was stated by my right hon. Friend on the Second Reading, it was not proposed to deal with the question of licensed houses in view of the complexity and the controversial nature of the subject. In Committee the hon and learned Member for Rusholme (Sir B. Merriman) suggested the substance of this new Clause. The hon. and gallant Member for St. Albans (Lieut.-Colonel Fremantle) brought it forward, but he explained that he had done so at the wish, and almost under the instructions, of the hon. and learned Member for Rusholme. The Government thought the Clause was not objectionable in itself, and as there appeared to be a strong desire to insert it they agreed to it in Committee; but the remarks of my right hon. Friend on Second Reading were only too well justified when the Bill went back to another place, because this innocent little Amendment met with prolonged and violent opposition. The Government feel that the matter is not one of very great importance in itself. It is a small Amendment dealing with the fringe of a subject which future Parliaments, when they have time, will no doubt deal with fully and properly. We do not feel it worth while at this stage to endanger the existence of the Bill by entering into a prolonged controversy with another place on this very minor Amendment which is, if I may say so, incongruous in
the main structure of the Bill. There is another reason for our attitude. The question of time is of great importance to the local authorities in their preparations for putting this Bill into operation. All things considered my right hon. Friend feels that it is right that we should not insist on the Amendment, and I hope under the circumstances that the hon. and learned Member for Rusholme will not press this point.

Sir B. MERRIMAN: I think the Parliamentary Secretary is inclined to minimise the importance of this Clause. It is quite true that it formed no part of the original Bill, and it is also true that in one sense the Bill does not deal with licensed houses, but at the same time the reception of patients int., licensed houses is provided for in the Bill. The genesis of the Clause was the very strong recommendation of the Royal Commission that there should be more licensed houses, a recommendation made after investigation of certain abuses of the existence of which the Royal Commission satisfied themselves. For that reason it occurred to some of us to make the Bill more in conformity with the report of the Royal Commission, and a great many of our Amendments were accepted by the Government, and accepted on that basis. This Amendment was accepted, as I understand, with practically no opposition in Committee, and although there was a great deal of contention over the Bill on the Report stage in the House, so far as I remember no particular exception was taken to this Clause. Therefore it was, in effect, put into the Bill with the unanimous support of the House.
There is only one other point I wish to make. There is no doubt that it does form another exception to the almost vanishing rule that an Englishman's house is his castle. It may involve restrictions in the case of institutions which are not being properly conducted, but we have not detected any great reluctance to multiply these instances in the policy of the Government, or any particular regard for the sanctity of private institutions. This Clause has been rejected in another place, because it entails undue interference in the management of private institutions, and in that sense I am pleased that the Government are prepared to accept the
Lords Amendment. I hope we may accept this as evidence of a remarkably sudden and unexpected change of heart on the part of the Government, Which is by no means to be discouraged, and, in the hope that this new respect for the sanctity of private institutions may receive every encouragement, I do not propose to oppose the Motion which has been moved by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health.

Mr. GOULD: I do not agree with the grounds put forward in favour of the rejection of this Clause; in fact, I think those grounds are strong reasons why we should support the Clause. These private institutions have their licences by law under the authority of this House, and they are certainly under a very great obligation to the public, especially in regard to their adminstration and their charges. There are many cases where very excessive charges are being made, and the least that this House ought to do is to insist upon this Amendment. I regard the terms of this Bill as giving new powers to these institutions, and I think the least, we should insist upon is that an audited account should be made available, so that the financial relationship in such matters should be made known.
In the interests of public decency and fair charges—I have heard of charges made to the extent of £20 per week per patient which practically means that these institutions are a law unto themselves—I regret the refusal of the Government To insist upon the Amendment, and I regard their action as a real breach of confidence with the Committee, because the whole Committee collectively and jointly agreed to this very innocent Amendment being inserted. For these reasons, I regret that the Government should not again insist upon the Amendment, which would have been at least seine compensation for those of us who regard this Bill as a very weak effort to deal with this problem. As licensed houses are very lucrative investments established by law, I think we should have insisted that those investments should be laid bare by an audited balance-sheet, and for these reasons I regret that the Amendment has not been insisted upon.

Dr. MORRIS-JONES: I trust the House will support the Motion which has been made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health. I felt at the time that this Clause was proposed that it was rather a dangerous Amendment. After all, this Bill does not deal with licensed houses at all, and a Clause of this character is an infringement of a Bill which does not actually deal with those private institutions. Hon. Members are quite aware that the Royal Commission which dealt with this question did not come to any agreement at all in relation to licensed houses, and they found that the question bristled with so many difficulties that they had to postpone the whole thing. I believe I am right in saying that the members of the Royal Commission were divided in their views on this question. I have no doubt there is a good deal in what the hon. Member for Frome (Mr. Gould) has said in regard to the charges of these private institutions, but one does feel that they may be prohibitive to the average individual.
Under this Bill, of course, further facilities will be open to the poor, and that is one reason why we should welcome the Measure. This Clause will not make one iota of difference to the charges made by these private institutions, and it will only involve an audit. At the present time the accounts of these institutions have to be audited in the ordinary way for Income Tax purposes like other private or business institutions in the country, and I think this Clause would be a serious and rather unwarranted infringement on the rights of private individuals. I am glad that the Parliamentary Secretary has agreed to this Amendment, and I trust that the House will support her.

Mr. KINLEY: I regret that the Government have been so weak in regard to this matter. When the Bill was first introduced I thought the principle upon which it was based was good, but, by the alterations which have been accepted, the Measure has been so distorted that it is now of very little value at all. With regard to the question now before us, I regret that the Government have agreed that there shall continue to be in this matter one law for the poor and another for the rich, for that in effect is what is happening. The Clause now before us is
one that would have brought both poor and rich under the same control, but as the Bill now stands it means that every institution to which a poor person goes will be subjected to financial control, and the whole of the accounts of those institutions must be submitted in detail year by year. On the other hand, the Government are now agreeing to a proposal under which institutions to which the wealthy people are sent shall not be subject to that financial control.
The Clause was introduced in order that every institution treating these patients should be subject to the same financial scrutiny, and we are now agreeing to a proposal under which that principle shall obtain so far as poor patients are concerned, but shall not obtain in the case of the wealthy. I regret that the Government have been so weak in this matter, and by accepting this Amendment they have further injured the Bill to such an extent that it has already lost whatever virtue it possessed in its original form. I am sorry for that, and, while I accept the position, I wish to enter a protest against the course which has been adopted. If another occasion should arise for dealing with this question, I hope the Government will see that what the House has decided on this point will be carried out, and I trust that we shall refuse to allow any other body to interfere in this matter.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I only wish to make two comments on the position in which the House finds itself with regard to this Amendment. Personally, I was never particularly enamoured of the Amendment, any more than of any part of the Bill, but on the whole I think it would be as well to accept the view of the other House, in order to get the Bill into actual operation. Beyond that, the Amendment goes outside, not the scope of the Bill, but a large amount of the ground which the original Bill would have covered. My reason for wishing that the Bill should be put into operation now is that I am convinced that sooner or later we shall have to go into the whole of this matter again with real care, and the sooner the Bill can be put into operation, so that its defects, which many people have seen throughout the whole course of its progress, and also the necessity for a complete reorganisation of this matter, can be brought out quite clearly, the
better it will be. For that reason, I personally hope that the House will agree to this Motion.

Mr. CECIL WILSON: The hon. and learned Member for Rusholme (Sir B. Merriman has given, as a reason for not insisting upon this Amendment, that it entails undue interference in the management of private institutions, but the difficulty in which a good many of us here are placed is that what is said in the other House entails undue interference with the management of public institutions.

Question, "That this House doth not insist upon its Amendment to which the Lords have disagreed," put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — THIRD PARTIES (RIGHTS AGAINST INSURERS) BILL.

Order for Consideration of Lords Amendment read.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Lords Amendment be now considered," put, and agreed to.—[Mr. Short.]

Lords Amendment considered accordingly.

CLAUSE 1.—(Rights of third parties against insurers err bankruptcy, etc., of the insured.)

Lords Amendment: In page 2, lines 24 to 32, leave out Sub-sections (4) and (5), and insert the following new Sub-section:
(4) Upon a transfer under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of this section, the insurer shall, subject to the provisions of section three of this Act, be under the same liability to the third party as he would have been under to the insured, but—

(a) if the liability of the insurer to the insured exceeds the liability of the insured to the third party, nothing in this Act shall affect the rights of the insured against the insurer in respect of the excess; and
(b) if the liability of the insurer to the insured is less than the liability of the insured to the third party, nothing in this Act shall affect the rights of the third party against the insured in respect of the balance."

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Short): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Lord EUSTACE PERCY: May we have some explanation as to whether this Amendment is purely drafting?

Mr. SHORT: This is purely a drafting Amendment. During the progress of the Bill, we were not altogether satisfied with Sub-sections (4) and (5); and certain Amendments which were made by this House, and the inclusion of Clause 3, accentuated the doubts that existed in our minds. Consequently, it was thought necessary to delete Sub-sections (4) and (5), and to include the Amendment which was made in another place and which is now before the House. The purpose of the new Sub-section is to cover three points—firstly, that upon transfer the insurance company shall be under a liability to the third party neither greater nor less than that under which it would have been to the policy holder; secondly, that, if the insurance company is under a greater liability to the policy holder than the policy holder is under to the third party, the policy holder may recover from the insurance company anything due under the policy in excess of what was paid to the third party; and, thirdly, if the liability of the insurance company to the policy holder is less than that of the policy holder to the third party, the third party shall have the right of recovering anything that he can get under the policy, and also of recovering any balance from the policy holder. We are satisfied that Sub-sections (4) and (5) as drafted do not clearly set out these three intentions, and the Amendment which we now propose to accept does so.

Lord E. PERCY: I can only say that both the old provision and the new seem to be equally incomprehensible.

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — AIR TRANSPORT (SUBSIDY AGREEMENTS) BILL.

Read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — OVERSEAS TRADE BILL.

Read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (SILICOSIS) BILL [Lords].

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. SHORT: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This Bill was recently introduced in another place, and, after some discussion, passed through its various stages without meeting with any serious opposition, and I hope that that also will be the case in this House. The object of the Bill is to amend the provisions of Section 47 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1925, which gives power to the Secretary of State to make schemes enabling employers to pay compensation to work-people who contract the disease of silicosis caused by silica dust. The Bill provides for the introduction of improved medical arrangements for the diagnosis and certification of cases of silicosis, and extends the provisions of Section 47 of the Act of 1925 to fibrosis of the lungs caused by asbestos dust, which is now known as asbestosis.
The diagnosis of silicosis has been found to be a very difficult matter, requiring special skill and the latest scientific knowledge and appliances in connection with radiography and so forth. In order to meet this difficulty, Section 47 of the Act of 1925 makes provision for schemes for the appointment of medical boards consisting of whole-time medical officers, but it makes no provision for the setting up of any special fund out of which these whole-time medical officers can be paid, and it is only in the case of the refractories and sandstone industries that a general trade compensation fund has been created, to which salaries may be charged, and such a medical board has been instituted. In 1928, my right hon. Friend's predecessor, now Lord Brentford, launched what is known as the Various Industries Silicosis Scheme, but no compensation fund has been created by any of the industries covered by the scheme. The medical examination certification in the case of silicosis depends entirely upon what I may term the ordinary medical machinery; in other words, the certifying factory surgeon is the responsible person, and there is a right of appeal to the medical referees under the Workmen's Compensation Act. This system has been found to be totally inadequate as regards the diagnosis of silicosis.
I am sure that no hon. Member will think that I would say one word in depreciation of the capacity or the interest of the certifying factory surgeons, but it must be admitted on all hands that the certifying factory surgeon is not an expert. He has seldom, if ever, at his disposal radiographic and other facilities and, indeed, at the time this scheme was originally introduced it was fully understood that it would be of a very temporary character. Considerable hardships have arisen out of these very unsatisfactory medical arrangements and it has been found necessary, in consequence, to limit the operation of the scheme to death and total disablement, excluding partial incapacity due to silicosis—a strange anomaly having regard to our existing law of workmen's compensation. It is really impossible to defend a position under which a workman partially incapacitated by silicosis in the refractories and sandstone industries is entitled to compensation on the scale laid down by the Act while a workman partially disabled by the same disease contracted in another industry is not entitled to any compensation at all.
Therefore, when the Bill is passed, and when the medical organisation has been established, it is my right hon. Friend's intention to proceed with an amending Order under Section 47 to remove the anomalies to which I have called attention. The first object, then, of the Bill is to secure uniform and effective medical arrangements for the diagnosis and certification of the disease of silicosis in all cases; and, secondly, to provide for the payment of compensation in all the industries concerned, and not only in respect of death and total disablement but also in respect of partial incapacity.
Having made those general observations, I will deal with the particular Clauses and indicate my right hon. Friend's intentions so far as these medical arrangements are concerned. Clause 2 gives the Secretary of State power to make a general scheme applicable to all the industries to which the liability to pay compensation has been extended for the purpose of co-ordinating the medical arrangements. It is proposed that the medical arrangements to be embodied in the general scheme should be based on the recommendations of the Silicosis
Medical Arrangements Committee. This Committee, appointed by Lord Brentford, consisted of Dr. Bridge the senior medical inspector of factories, Professor Arthur Hall of Sheffield and Dr. Coutts of the Ministry of Health. Their report was presented to Parliament on September 17th, 1929, and it pointed out that the diagnosis of silicosis involves both clinical and radiological examination by competent medical men of wide and practical experience of the disease, and they recommended that medical boards appointed by the Secretary of State, consisting of at least two specially qualified whole-time officers, should form the basis of the medical arrangements, that there should be a medical board with panels set up at different centres, and that the work should be co-ordinated by a chief medical officer with a central bureau at Sheffield to maintain, as far as possible, uniformity in administration and, indeed, a uniform standard in so far as this matter is concerned.
I have indicated that, under the refractory and sandstone scheme, something has been done in the way of a compensation fund, and we have already established three separate panels, one at Sheffield, one at Newcastle and one at Bristol, with a chief medical officer at Sheffield. The arrangement is satisfactory and works well, and my right hon. Friend proposes, with the consent of the parties interested in the refractory and sandstone industries scheme, to convert the existing medical board into a national board. That will obviously involve a great deal more work and it will, no doubt, be necessary to arrange for the appointment of additional panels upon which they can draw.

Dr. V. DAVIES: Will those boards be directly under the Factory Department or the Home Office?

Mr. SHORT: As far as I understand, under the Home Office. If I have made a mistake, I shall be happy to correct it. If I understand it aright, there will be no difference except that it will be national rather than confined to a particular industry. As regards finance, the proposal is to set up a medical expenses fund, which will be maintained by fees payable by employers and workers in respect of examinations, and additional grants from the Treasury. My right hon. Friend will appoint trustees, who will be responsible for the collection of the fees
and for the payments in accordance with the scheme.
Under Clause 2 (1, b) the fees to be paid in respect of examinations and certificates will be fixed by regulations which will be made by the Secretary of State and approved by the Treasury. He will naturally consult the employers and work-people concerned in these industries in relation to these fees and he will not be averse from the appointment of a small Advisory Committee or Council. Paragraphs (d) and (e) give powers for the enforcement of periodical medical examinations which the Secretary of State already has power under Section 47 of the Act of 1925 to require in case of particular industries or processes. Sufficient powers exist in relation to enforcement respecting workmen, for if a workman refuses examination he obviously forfeits the right to any compensation. The position is not quite the same in relation to employers. There are no means at present of enforcing such provisions except in the case of an industry where a trade compensation fund exists, and where that exists, of course, an employer can be called upon to pay a contribution.
May I say a word or two in reference to medical examinations. It is desirable that they should take place at once and periodically, if necessary, and those making the medical examinations and called upon to make a certification should be most competent and have at their disposal all that is necessary and desirable in the way of machinery and so forth. The Departmental Committee stressed the value of the initial and periodic medical examinations. They said:
These examinations provide an opportunity for the diagnosis of silicosis in the earliest detectable stage and enable Suspension from the risk to be effected before the disease has made serious progress. This point was emphasised by witnesses who have appeared before us, in particular by Dr. Wickins-Pitchford, the late Chairman of the Medical Bureau in South Africa. The accumulated evidence of previous records is also of the greatest assistance when the question of certification arises.
That was the very valuable opinion of the Departmental committee. I am pleased to say that in that connection their opinion was reinforced by the Potteries Workmen's Compensation Committee. They arrived at a similar conclusion. They said in effect—and I am summarising their conclusions
—that such medical examinations tended to the elimination of pulmonary tuberculosis, to the detection of early silicosis, and that they afforded evidence of the conditions producing the disease which once obtained could be supervised and possibly eliminated. There was also valuable assistance given in connection with the diagnosis; and, further, the suspension from employment in silica processes at the earliest stage of the disease tended to arrest the development of the disease. I do not wish to delay the House by quoting from the very striking evidence of Dr. Sutherland, chief medical officer of the medical board at Sheffield, but the facts stated by him justify the proposals embodied is this Bill.
I wish to make it clear that, in connection with these medical examinations—I do not want any misunderstanding to arise regarding the nature of the examinations or who has to be examined, it is not intended that all workers covered by the schemes should be required to be medically examined. I think that there are possibly some 60,000 or 70,000 workers, and it is not proposed to call upon them all to be medically examined, but periodical examinations will be made only as and when prescribed under the scheme and only in cases of processes where they are really necessary. Home Office experience justifies the scheme which is embodied in this Bill. I am pleased to say that the employers in the industries affected believe that this scheme is on right lines and the Trades Union Congress General Council representing the workers in the industries concerned also approve of them. I am hopeful that the proposals which I am now submitting will be acceptable to all parties of the House.
There is only one other matter to which I need refer, and that is in connection with Clause 1, which deals with the second object of the Bill, namely "asbestosis." The Clause proposes to extend the powers of making compensation schemes in Section 47 to industries and processes involving exposure to asbestos dust on the lungs. The effects of asbestos dust was recently the subject of a very wide and comprehensive inquiry by Dr. Merewether and Mr. C. W. Price, His Majesty's Inspectors of Factories. Their report was presented to Parliament in March, 1930. The inquiry covered not merely processes involving manipula-
tion of asbestos as such, but the working of asbestos cloth into all kinds of articles, and they came to the conclusion that the risk of an asbestos worker contracting fibrosis of the lungs, involving in some cases serious disability and in others death, was very great indeed. No one who reads the evidence submitted to that Committee can help being impressed by it and believing that there is a real justification for the extension of this Clause to asbestos workers.
Some interesting figures were set out in the report. I need only say that, in so far as the general incidence rate is concerned, it indicated that the proportion of those at work in the sections of the industry considered who were found to be affected by this disease was nearly one in eight. There are only some 2,000 workers involved, but the evidence proved that there is great risk indeed, and that it is desirable and essential that something should be done on the lines which this Bill indicates. The same medical arrangements to which I have referred in relation to silicosis are desirable and essential in this case. Periodical examinations are desirable. Consequently, I hope the House will give this Bill a unanimous Second Reading It may well be that there are some points which will need consideration on the Committee stage, but I cannot think that there can be great opposition to the fundamental principles of the Bill, and in that case I venture to beseech the House to give it a Second Reading.

Mr. DOUGLAS HACKING: I do not rise to oppose the Second Reading of this Bill. It would be very ungracious to do so after the interesting and illuminating speech which has just been delivered by the Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs. I have very few observations to make at this particular moment, but there is one thing about which I should like to make complaint at the outset. I believe that the title of the Bill is somewhat misleading. It is known as the Workmen's Compensation (Silicosis) Bill. The hon. Member told us that only one of the two operative Clauses deals with silicosis and that the first Clause deals solely with this new disease, as far as workmen's compensation, at any rate, is concerned, which, for want of a better name, he describes
as "asbestosis." If this Clause referred to silicosis, it would, I believe, have been unnecessary to introduce this Bill, because silicosis is dealt with under the old Act. As a proof that the disease is not silicosis, we find in the Schedule of the Bill that the name given to it is "fibrosis of the lungs, due to asbestos dust." I suggest that it would have been a good thing—and in fact it may be desirable at a later stage in Committee—to have amended the title of the Bill to "Workmen's Compensation (Silicosis and Asbestosis) Bill," in order that the country and everybody concerned in the industries should realise the problem which is dealt with by the Measure.
When I was at the Home Office occupying the position which is now occupied by the hon. Member who has just spoken, I had, as one of my duties, to preside over a committee on this disease of silicosis, and it was my duty to travel about the country and visit several of the works where silicosis was a prevalent disease. I remember going to Sheffield, and there seeing some of the steel-grinding works, and being very impressed with the terror of this particular complaint. I remember visiting the pottery industry at Stoke, where, again, there was a great deal of this disease prevalent. One could see it in the faces of the people who were working in those industries, and, therefore, one could not help being sympathetic towards those poor people working, in some cases, under very deplorable conditions. But I am bound to say that in some of the well-managed factories, every precaution was taken so that the silicosis dust could not get into the lungs of the workmen. They had all sorts of devices which sucked the dust away from the man's mouth, and in Sheffield they had new wheels known as abrasive wheels, which did not contain silica, and thus the dust which came from them could not affect the lungs in the same way as the dust from the old-fashioned silica wheels.
I mention these two facts only in order to lead up to this: In my belief a great deal can still be done towards the prevention of this disease, and I believe that we should, in the main, concentrate on that side of the case, for, after all, prevention of disease is better than permitting the disease anti allowing compensation to follow. Therefore, I do beg of the
Government to concentrate on prevention, and even if it is at some expense to the general taxpayer, I ask them to consider whether or not they can do more than they have done in the past to press upon certain employers the desirability of having some of these new safety devices installed in their factories, in order that this disease may be prevented. As I have said, this would be a good deal better than having the disease and then allowing compensation to follow.
12 n.
The hon. Member made no mention of the cost of this Measure to the industry. He has told us that there are about 70,000 persons engaged in the industry affected—that is, silica alone. I believe that that is true. We have 2,200 more now included on account of asbestosis. But he said that of these 70,000 persons, it would not be necessary to have an examination carried out in connection with them all. I am not sure that that is true. I, myself, believe that if you are really going to conquer this disease, you must have a very full examination of every individual connected with the industry, and, if so, it means that there will have to be an examination carried out by 100 doctors. I am open to correction by my hon. Friend behind me, but I believe that it is a fact that a doctor cannot make more than about 800 satisfactory examinations in a year, especially in connection with a very complicated disease such as this. If that be so, it will need about 100 doctors to carry through 70,000 examinations in a year, and it must be remembered that these doctors must not be ordinary doctors but specialists in this disease, because it is so difficult to diagnose. It gives one the impression that there will be a very heavy cost, and if that cost is in the main laid upon the industry, it may be a very serious thing to the employers and employés of the industry. Therefore, I beg that we may have some estimate of the cost which the hon. Gentleman anticipates will have to be borne by the industry, and, if it is a very heavy cost, I suggest that the Treasury should come to the assistance and should give a substantial grant to the industry to prevent the industry having to bear such a very large expense.
I have nothing more to say. In the report, which the hon. Member has
quoted, I believe it is a fact that doctors agree that preventive measures should be considered, and I do hope that those measures, a few only of which I have mentioned, will not be overlooked. I agree that this Bill should have a Second Reading. I am doubtful that it will be necessary to amend it very much even in Committee, but I do ask that we should have very careful consideration given to several of the points contained in the Bill. I believe that it is a very important, a very desirable Measure, and if we can amend it in Committee, not with any desire of wrecking the Measure, but of improving it, then, I believe, we shall have done a service not only to those industries, but to the two terrible complaints of silicosis and asbestosis which are covered by the Clauses in the Bill. I offer, as I said, no opposition to the Second Reading of the Bill, and I hope, as the hon. Member hopes, that the Bill will receive its Second Reading by the unanimous decision of the House.

Mr. H. W. SAMUEL: I rather gather from what has been said by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and by the Under-Secretary, that this Bill applies only to those engaged in one trade, but, after reading Clause 2, I would like an assurance from the Under-Secretary that it extends even to miners who are engaged in processes which expose them to silica dust. I am sure that other Members as well as myself would like to get that assurance. I am in hearty sympathy with Clause 2 for this reason. It has been said by the Under-Secretary, and, indeed, by the right hon. Member opposite, that diagnosis is particularly difficult when you have to ascertain whether a man has died from silicosis or not. In this respect, I think medical referees have been pressing for such an Amendment as that in Clause 2. An instance has been brought to my knowledge by a referee. This referee reminded me that all he had by way of remuneration for diagnosis was three guinees, and we all know that for purposes of a claim for compensation you have to get a certificate from the medical referee to the effect that death was due to silicosis.
This particular referee, who has had considerable experience, told me that diagnosis was very difficult, and, having
regard to the fact that he was conscious of his own limitations, he got into touch with a leading provincial pathologist, who, at his request, went with the referee to make a post-mortem examination. On a visual examination, the pathologist who conducted the post-mortem examination came to the conclusion that the deceased did not die from silicosis. He, was satisfied from the colour of the lungs that there was not silicosis, but he had the lungs sent for examination to the School of Mines, and the report came back to the effect that the man did die of silicosis. There was silica in the lungs to bring about the man's death. There we have the extraordinary circumstance that the medical referee, who was deputed under the Act to make the postmortem examination, with the assistance of one of the leading provincial pathologists, came to the conclusion that the man was not suffering from silicosis at the time he died, but, upon incineration of the lungs, it was found that the lungs themselves contained silicosis sufficient to bring about the man's death.
So far as Clause 2 is calculated to bring about a better condition of things, obviously it is in the interests of those engaged in the particular industries which are exposed to silicosis dust, and if we can have an assurance from the Under Secretary that the scheme will apply to miners I am sure that the miners' representatives in this House will give their heartiest welcome to this particular Clause.

Dr. DAVIES: I also welcome the appearance of this Bill and I cordially support the Second Reading, but I would like the House thoroughly to understand what it means. This Bill is purely a skeleton by which we bring into Section 47 the power to grant compensation to cases of silicosis and asbestosis. The whole success or failure of the Bill will depend on the scheme which the Home Secretary will adumbrate, which will be issued by Order and laid on the Table of the House. If the regulations or the instructions which the Home Secretary makes are sufficient, then the procedure will do good, but if they are not, it may do harm. I congratulate the Under Secretary on the lucidity with which he dealt with a medical subject, and I was pleased to hear from him that the panel of doctors who are going to deal with
the matter will probably be under the Home Office.
Hon. Members who take a great interest in these industrial diseases must be aware that there are great dangers in this legislation and also great disappointments. These diseases are not incurable in the early stages, when they have not a very bad effect upon health. The health is slightly deteriorated, but if the patient is removed from the industry in time there is practically no detrimental effect upon the health. The difficulty that is going to happen under the scheme to be elaborated by the Home Office is the same trouble that we have at the present time over pension cases. There may be a man who may have worked in a mine or a sandstone quarry for a year or two, and a few years afterwards, having left the industry, he may develop a little chronic bronchitis and a cough, whereupon he will say: "I must have contracted silicosis," and he goes to be examined. Unless the medical men who make the examination in these cases have the absolute confidence of the people of this country it will be difficult to satisfy a man who is of the opinion that he has got his disease through working in a mine or in a sandstone quarry or in an asbestos works, when the medical man decides that that is not the case. Therefore, legislation of this character although very necessary has danger attached to it.
Take a case of asbestosis. A man does not develop that disease until he has worked five or ten years in that particular industry. Long before that time that disease will have been diagnosed. What will happen then? The employers in the industry will naturally be anxious that the disease should not progress and will have their workmen examined periodically. Upon the first sign of any weakness in the lungs, the man will be dismissed. The employers will say I hat they are not going to run any risk. Therefore, in the course of time, and particularly in some of the worst industries, a boy or a young man will be examined before he is allowed to work in the industry, and the result will be that only first class lives will be admitted. That will increase unemployment and there will be a section of men who will not be allowed to work in certain industries. I want hon. Members to understand what is
going to be in front of them in this respect. A man who works as a collier or in a sandstone quarry may have a boy who desires to follow in his footsteps. The boy may be examined by a doctor who says that his lungs are not very strong and that he is not suitable for this particular occupation. That may be the only occupation in the district. What is that boy to do. He may have to leave home to go into some other industry.
These are some of the troubles which will have to be faced in the future. Therefore, it is essential for the success of the Bill and the success of the scheme that the medical men should be absolutely above suspicion. For that reason, I am strongly of opinion that the medical boards should be absolutely under the department of the Home Secretary, that there should be a Government medical service for these industrial diseases which should have the confidence of the employers, of the workmen, and of this House. That would mean that the verdict of these medical men would be decisive. If any medical board decided that a man has a slight degree of silicosis but not sufficient for compensation that verdict would have to be accepted straight away. That is one reason why this should be an independent medical service. The diagnosis of silicosis is expert work by men who have been trained for it. I would like to assure the right hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hacking) that it will not require 100 doctors, because it will not be necessary to examine all the 70,000 men in the industry in the first year. It will be possible to take the serious cases first and the cases where the risk is greatest, and in the course of time work through. Six or seven medical boards and perhaps more will be required. These men, trained in the diagnosis of silicosis and asbestosis would be able, first of all, to deal with the bad cases and gradually work down until they had dealt with all the cases in the industry, and in any case where there was the slightest suspicion of silicosis a warning would be given advising the person concerned to find another job, if possible.
I know how anxious certain hon. Members are about silicosis and how anxious the miners are that they should be included in the scheme, but they must bear
in mind that at the present time it has been regarded as essential that there should be a certain percentage of silica in the dust. If the scheme provides that there must be 20, 30, 40, or 50 per cent. of silica in coal and then it turns out that that particular coal is below that content, it will mean that the miners in that colliery will not come under the scheme, and there may be trouble there. I am anxious that hon. Members opposite should not think that to-day we are passing legislation which is going to get rid of all their troubles and make them perfectly happy, and that in the future any man with a cough will get compensation if he has worked in silica. That will not happen. There will be a very large number of cases that will not come under the scheme. It is well that hon. Members should thoroughly understand that now, in order that they may not raise hopes among the miners and other workers that once this Bill is passed any man who has a trace of silica or asbestos in his lungs will be scheduled for compensation. That will not happen. Otherwise, I heartily support the Bill and I hope the Home Secretary will do all that he can to see that it is quickly put upon the Statute Book.

Mr. HARDIE: I only want to raise the point that the dust from these workings is not allowed to come into contact with people living near, because otherwise they become subject to the same disease. You have only to visit works in Staffordshire to see the effect on the women and children, and I hope the Home Office will devise some method which will provide that the dust can be taken away and shall not be allowed to dry in the open air.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

Orders of the Day — ROAD TRAFFIC (FINES).

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 71A.

[CAPTAIN BOURNE in the Chair.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That for the purpose of any Act of the present Session to make provision for the regulation of traffic on roads and of motor vehicles and otherwise with respect to roads
and vehicles thereon; to make provision for the protection of third parties against risks arising out of the use of motor vehicles and in connection with such protection to amend the Assurance Companies Act, 1909; to amend the Law with respect to the powers of local authorities to provide public service vehicles and for other purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, it is expedient to authorise the payment into the Exchequer of all fines, whether imposed by courts of summary jurisdiction or otherwise, in respect of offences under the said Act or the regulations made under the Act."—(King's Recommendation signified.)

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT: (Mr. Herbert Morrison): This is a simple matter which is being taken by agreement with the right hon. and gallant Member for Christchurch (Colonel Ashley). In the course of the proceedings in the Committee on the Road Traffic Bill I accepted an Amendment which widened the Clause dealing with the application of fees and fines under Part I of the Bill, so that the fines imposed by courts other than courts of summary jurisdiction were brought into the Clause. The Amendment was moved by the right hon. and gallant Member and as I thought it was a sensible proposal I accepted it, but, unfortunately, it is technically outside the Money Resolution passed by the House and the purpose of this Money Resolution is to cover the Amendment
which the late Minister of Transport moved in Committee and which I accepted.

Colonel ASHLEY: I am afraid that it was owing to the Minister of Transport departing from his usual attitude of refusing all my Amendments that we have to deal with this matter this morning. It was an Amendment which seemed to me to be necessary, and it received the unanimous support of the Committee. It simply brings the matter into conformity with the existing law, that all fines levied under the Road Traffic Act should go into the Road Fund and for no other purpose. In order to encourage the Minister of Transport to accept on the Report Stage more Amendments I hope the Committee will agree to this Money Resolution.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported upon Monday next, 23rd June.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. T. Kennedy.]

Adjourned at Twenty-one Minutes after Twelve o'Clock.